This classic study from 1959 describes, better than everyone else why modern men work beyond economic subsistence. Because it focuses only on men, it’s limited in a gender-diverse workplace, but because it studies two diverse occupations – accountants and engineers – it remains fairly generalizable. It concludes that the main reason people dislike their workplace is mismanaged environmental factors. But it also concludes that managing environmental factors properly does not positively motivate people to work. Rather, the positive motivation comes from more intrinsic factors like the work itself, recognition, or personal growth. Nothing since 1959 has come to replace this treatise’s key insight.

Women’s motivations to work certainly deserve another comprehensive study. Even defining what “work” is in a feminine context deserves ample attention and discussion. That limitation aside, this exploration stands as the best academic explanation of the human factors behind keeping high-performing talent happy and motivating high performance in a team. Those just interested in the conclusions and not the study itself can skip to the third section.

To the authors, salary is a loaded concept in this space. It’s complicated because it can be both an intrinsic factor in terms of recognition and an environmental factor in terms of fairness with others. The authors encourage readers to interpret it in terms of its subjective affectations rather than as an “objective” good. While many in the business community treat money as the highest possible good, this study pushes us to look more deeply into money as a social construct – a viewpoint helpful to me.

Of note, the authors use the word “hygiene” to describe environmental factors in an unorthodox way that seems rooted in a 1950s concept of public health. To communicate with audiences 60-70 years from now, I’d definitely use a different term, like “environmental factors.” That badly chosen term also stands as a significant limitation of this study. Nonetheless, this study clearly answered many modern questions about the psychology of work. It should be viewed as compatible with – and a deepening of – Maslow’s famous “hierarchy of needs.”

Coaches, managers, and anyone else concerned with getting the most out of a team should read this work for guidance. Again, mixed teams or women-only teams might have limited import, but understanding these concepts is a key place to start. Differentiating separate causes of “highs” and “lows” helps to point to how to meld a team together to reach a particular aim. Writing 60+ years later, I suspect this book will enlighten readers in decades to come. ( )